17 September 2015, Renew Economy, Turnbull channels Abbott as he attacks Labor’s renewables target, ETS. Plus ça change. The more it changes, the more it stays the same. Despite Malcolm Turnbull’s tantalising sales pitch ahead of the leadership spill earlier this week, there wasno real expectation for quick policy change. But there was hope that at least the rhetoric might change once Turnbull dislodged Tony Abbott as head of the Liberal Party and as prime minister of Australia. It hasn’t happened. It is pretty much business as usual. Nothing has changed. On Wednesday, Turnbull attacked Labor’s 50 per cent renewable energy target as reckless, environment minister Greg Hunt trotted out his usual nonsense about the cost of Labor’s as yet unstated emissions reductions target, while Queensland Liberal Senator Ian Macdonald resumed his long-running campaign to describe climate change science as a hoax and a fraud. If that wasn’t enough, the federal Nationals rejected a motion put forward by progressive members from their Western Australia division to declare support for renewable energy. Meanwhile, in the Senate, the independent Senator John Madigan, head of a Coalition-supported wind inquiry, continued to wage war on the industry. Turnbull’s comments were particularly alarming, given his presumed support for renewable energy. He has yet to pronounce himself on the future of the Climate Change Authority, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation or the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, three institutions that Abbott tried unsuccessfully to destroy, but Turnbull was already dismissive of Labor’s proposed 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030. Read More here
hmcadmin
17 September 2015, The Conversation. Australia is among the most liveable nations, but it lags other countries on sustainability. Australia may be one of the most liveable places in the world, but a new report ranks us in the middle when it comes to sustainability. Of the 34 OECD countries, Australia ranked 18th. The report compared OECD countries’ performance against the new Sustainable Development Goals, to be formalised in New York at the end of this month. The top five countries were Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Switzerland. The bottom five were Mexico, Turkey, Hungary, Chile and Greece. The United States came in 29th, New Zealand 16th, the United Kingdom 15th, and Canada 11th. So how did Australia get such a mediocre result? Sustainable development: a matter for everyone. Later this month, the UN General Assembly will make a final decision on the adoption of the post-2015 development agenda including the articulation of 17 Sustainable Development Goals that have been developed over the past three years through an extensive international and cross-sector process of consultation. The 17 SDGs extend the original Millennium Development Goals) that were established in 2000 with a target date of 2015. Progress against the MDGs is largely regarded as satisfactory, but it is well accepted that further progress on sustainable development is required, as articulated in the outcome document of the 2012 Rio +20 Summit. Unlike the Millennium Development Goals, the new goals include developed countries. Sustainable development is a global matter to which all countries must turn their focus, whatever their development status. How Australia measures up? Read More here
17 September 2015, The Conversation, Free trade agreements fail to boost Australian agriculture and food manufacturing. Many claims are made that Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with select trading partners will benefit Australian agriculture. OECD statistics say otherwise. The balance of trade positions of Australian agriculture and food manufacturing have deteriorated since FTAs with New Zealand, the United States and Thailand have come into play. The long-standing 1983 New Zealand arrangement shows growing imports of processed food products, especially since 2000. Australian food exports to New Zealand have levelled off since 2011 with a US$600 million Australian deficit on food products in 2014. Agricultural goods have been close to balance with just over US$270 million of raw or minimally processed product flowing each way. The net result (shown in black) has been a persistent and generally worsening deficit for Australia in its agriculture and food trade with New Zealand for the whole period. Read More here
16 September 2015, The Daly News, What is Wrong with a Zero Interest Rate? The stock market took a dip, so the Fed will likely continue to keep the interest rate at zero, in conformity with its goal of supporting asset prices by quantitative easing. What is wrong with a zero interest rate? Doesn’t it boost investment, growth, and employment? There are many things wrong with a zero interest rate. Remember that the interest rate is a price paid to savers by borrowing investors. At a zero price, savers will save less and receive less return on past savings. Savers and pensioners are penalized. At a near zero price for borrowed funds, investors are being subsidized and will invest in just about anything, leading to many poor investments and negative returns, furthering the economy’s already advanced transition from economic to uneconomic growth. Zero interest promotes an infinite demand for savings with zero new supply. But the “supply” is provided artificially by the Fed printing money. Read More here